Tag Archives: development

Authenticity

Recently, I heard a claim that there were only two authentic expressions of sex, i.e., the natural binary of male and female. The speaker argued that this binary and only this binary is natural and therefore authentic. As I considered this claim, my thoughts went back to the early history of life on this planet when sex evolved as a reproductive strategy. Biological evolution, as a process, produced two reproductively distinct sexes. The strategy has endured because it improved the odds of successful reproduction of any species using it. Sexes exist for a biologically functional purpose and only for that reason. Remove the biological advantages from sexual reproduction and sexes never would have evolved. This means in its most fundamental sense male and female reflect reproductive sexes. The majority of individuals are male or female in the reproductive meaning of the two categories. Any fundamental differences between the two reproductive sexes, whether in anatomy, physiology, affect, cognition or behavior appear of necessity to be tied to reproductive functions. This seems to be what the speaker mentioned above had in mind. In another piece on this site, I have argued that male and female represent a complimentary pair that anchor the points at either end of a spectrum lying between the pair. The speaker denied as authentic the spectrum and thus anyone representing it.

Evolution is not an invariant process and a minority of births result in atypical outcomes related to sex, as well as other characteristics. Some atypical sex related outcomes are more easily identified than others. There are variations in anatomical outcomes such as in the structure of the genitalia. There are also physiological variations such as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which result in a genetically XY individual who appears female but has no internal female reproductive organs. There also appear to be a range of atypical sex related outcomes, possibly related to physiological processes, that aren’t well understood. For example, there are likely atypical outcomes due to hormone exposure during development that is hypothesized to occur at the wrong time or persist for too long or too brief of a period or to involve the wrong hormone altogether. These are usually only identifiable through overt behavior and/or reports of covert psychological states such as thoughts, feelings and behavioral impulses arising in awareness and becoming objects of consciousness, which may or may not be overtly acted upon. Thus, in addition to anatomical variations, there can be outcomes resulting in variations in sexual orientation, sense of sexuality and gender identity. These atypical variations can be manifest in various combinations and to varying degrees and will be stronger and more intense in some individuals than in others. I would say that any variation that is a product of nature is natural and any claim that it is unnatural is a false claim.

If you take the variations above, which arguably have a basis in biology and then insert them into the psycho-social context represented by culture, a whole new layer of considerations emerge. Culture represents a range of narratives about human nature and the role of people in the institutions and practices of society. These include such things as religion, politics, medicine and psychology among others. During development, we all begin to build up a narrative about how we fit into this many-faceted cultural matrix. For example, many would call this personal narrative ego or self. How we define our fit into this matrix or allow it to be defined for us can have far ranging implications. It is my assertion that it is a human right for each individual to define for themselves their relationship to the cultural matrix in which they live. That said, understand that there are components within the matrix that resist such a right in many of the variations within a population. Deniers of human rights tend to have rigid personalities and a need for certainty even if they are certainly wrong. Such people could be said to be lost in their mind.

What I mean by the mind is that scaffold of mental constructs that go by names such as ideas, concepts, beliefs and facts that are usually revealed in our use of language. Our experiences are encoded through images and words and are therefore linked to the scaffold. The development of the cultural mind is supported by the experiences of the body in the physical world. Experience is a critical contributor to the development of the cultural mind. Complimentary pairs, like male and female or good and evil, exist because they make experience possible through the tensions produced by the contrast between the end points – if no contrasts, then no experience. You can’t have the experience of temperature without the binary of hot and cold.

The cultural mind, in my view, might be thought of as a cognitive structure existing within awareness. By way of illustration, imagine a large grassy field (awareness) with a complex set of “monkey bars” (cultural mind) set up on part of it. Most of us spend most of our time “playing” on the monkey bars and are largely oblivious to the field (awareness). When an experience occurs, we usually interpret it through the structures comprising the cultural mind. This is what is known as top-down perception. Looking at an experience from the perspective of the field and excluding the monkey bars is called bottom up perception and is typical of young children and awakened adults. This is the perspective of the natural mind.

I would suggest that the self that resides in the cultural mind is a personal myth and is a story woven from memories, which are selective and ever changing. This self can never be authentic in any foundational sense. Authenticity in a person is, in my view, to be found only in the beingness from which the field of awareness arises, not in the cultural mind. Thus, to legitimately characterize someone as authentic is to speak of them as an expression of that underlying beingness, a state that precedes mind and body. A state that resides in the source field of awareness, which is the ground of all being. The authentic Self shines through some individuals’ way of being in the world and is hidden by others’ way of being in the world. It is not that one has it and another lacks it, for both have it. It is just evident in one and not the other. Let us seek communion with our authentic Self and then let it shine into the world to be seen by all who have eyes with which to see it.

Taken

          The title for this piece, unlike the book by the same title, has nothing to do with alien abductions. It is drawn from something one of my sons used to say when very young. If asked why he did something he would often reply, “It just took me.” That observation seems apropos to the content of this essay.

After reading and listening to a number of people that I feel confident are spiritually enlightened people, I have come away with the following points about Enlightenment:

1.     You can’t develop it. There are no steps you can master one at at time. It is not like working through a belt system in karate. There is no black belt to be attained in the end.

2.      You can’t learn it. The study of theology or philosophy will not help. As one Enlightened being remarked, “…many of you are too intelligent for your own good. You have developed ways of interpreting the world that are highly complex. And so in order to address you…I am called upon to help you get past your education back to the simplicity of being, which is that God is Love….”

3. You can’t earn it. Being charitable and doing good works may make you feel good and may be needed and appreciated by the recipients, but they do not contribute to some “spiritual score board.”

Enlightenment is equally available to a serial killer and a pious nun. Going to church and going to a casino are equally efficacious. In short, you have no control over it. It is largely out of your hands. It just takes you.

So, how do you come to be taken? The simple answer is by Grace*. Most of the sources I’ve read or heard suggest that there are only two things that you can do that might serve as an “invitation” to Supraliminal* Consciousness (Christ Spirit, Buddha Nature, Holy Spirit, Shakti or what have you) to manifest. The operative word here is “might.” The first is meditation. The specific practice is not important as long as it makes the fictive- self* or ego transparent. This simply means getting mentally out of the way so that there is an opening through which Supraliminal Consciousness can shine through your mask. A transparent self is essentially what was discussed in The Natural Mind.* Returning to this state of mind has many benefits in and of itself. It is not, however, a condition necessary for Grace. The second is by Transmission.* Transmission is an invitation extended through a person in whom full enlightenment has manifest. Contact with the power of Supraliminal Consciousness emanating from such a person can create an opening in those exposed. The operative word here is “can.” Neither of these two methods will manifest Consciousness. In the end, it is entirely dependent upon Grace.

Terminology:

*Grace, a non-contingent, unconditional gift. It is independent of any response you can make to affect it.

*Supraliminal, liminal refers to a threshold of perception. Think of the Unified Field of Consciousness flowing through you like a beam of light. Conscious awareness is comprised of those frequencies of the light that you can perceive. There are frequencies that are both below (sub) and above (supra) your conscious awareness.

*Fictive-self, see The Natural Mind below.

*Natural Mind, a state of unconditioned awareness unobstructed by your story about yourself .

*Transmission, a term in a spiritual context that means transmitting a level of subtle energy that is only present in a fully enlightened person that can provide an opening in the perceptual barrier between conscious awareness and Supraliminal Consciousness. In early Christian practice this was called Initiation or Conveying Blessing and probably has had no real role in Christianity in nearly two thousand years. In Siddha Yoga this is called Shaktipat and has been and still is a recognized practice. It is not commonly practiced but is available through a small number of persons.